From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 11:30:51 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] libcgicc: bump to version 3.2.13 In-Reply-To: <1396135140-1402-2-git-send-email-gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> References: <1396135140-1402-1-git-send-email-gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> <1396135140-1402-2-git-send-email-gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> Message-ID: <20140330113051.5c43cc69@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Gustavo Zacarias, On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 20:19:00 -0300, Gustavo Zacarias wrote: > Also add license files and docs license definition. > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo Zacarias > --- > package/libcgicc/libcgicc.mk | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Applied, thanks, with one minor change. > +LIBCGICC_LICENSE = LGPLv3+, docs: GFDL1.2+ I've changed this to the more traditional: LGPLv3+ (library), GFDL1.2+ (docs) Though I'm wondering if: * We shouldn't use GFDLv1.2+ instead, like we do for GPL/LGPL. * Whether we should really worry about the documentation license, since we don't allow the installation of the documentation on the target. I don't think we have any other package that describe the license of their documentation. Cc'ing Luca and Yann to get an opinion on this. Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com